4.5 Review

Apatinib for treating advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma after failed chemotherapy A case report and literature review

Journal

MEDICINE
Volume 97, Issue 49, Pages -

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000013372

Keywords

anti-angiogenesis; apatinib; biliary tract cancer targeted therapy; intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rationale: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) originates from the secondary branch of the bile duct and the intrahepatic bile duct epithelial cells, and is a rare pathological type of primary liver cancer. Recently, apatinib has been successfully used for a variety of malignancies. Patient concerns: A 23-year-old female was noted with intermittent right upper abdominal distension, abdominal pain, and vomiting after eating for more than 1 month. The enhanced CT scan revealed multiple intrahepatic lesions, portal vein and right branch tumor emboli were present. Diagnosis: Combined with the patient's medical history and pathology and immunohistochemistry, the diagnosis was confirmed as locally advanced unresectable ICC (cT4N1M1, Stage IVB). Interventions: The disease progressed after six cycles of gemcitabine plus capecitabine chemotherapy. She received oral apatinib treatment since September 30, 2017. Due to related adverse reactions, the patient could not tolerate the treatment, and the subsequent reduction therapy was given. Outcomes: On April 11, 2018, the review of CT evaluation suggested that the disease was progressed. Hence, in this patient, apatinib as second-line treatment for advanced ICC showed a progression-free survival with 6 months. Lessons: Apatinib as second-line treatment for advanced ICC is effective, and the adverse effects are tolerable. However, the efficacy and safety of apatinib in the treatment of ICC need to be further confirmed by large sample of prospective randomized controlled trials.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available